• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Soliciting Contributions for Non-Res CHL Case Against Denver, CO

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:
The VA official, op cit,is being sued, ex officio as an agent of the US government. It will be defended by the Justice Department, not his private lawyer. Suits against the US government are virtually always against an official of it acting in official capacity. Let's not muddy the water. If a suit against an official is won, who pays? The US Treasury.
OK, finally, you see now that suits against the government generally proceed against a named official of the government, a legal fiction around the doctrine of sovereign immunity, in order to reach the state itself.

That is the point of Lonnie's proposed suit - to sue the official who denies his carry permit application in order to facially attack the unconstitutional state statute.

There is nothing to "finally" see. You keep missing the point: the US or any state government can be sued, has been and will be again. The lead agency head is generally named. E.g., the head of the VA, or Treasury or whatever, but he is not being sued. He is named as a stand in against the respondent: the US government. If the suit is won, who pays? Not him, but the US Treasury. A county sheriff has no standing to be named in a suit against state law, any more than a county Dogcatcher. I've never said a person can't be named in the complaint; simply that the ultimate respondent is the state/country.

The statute is fully constitutional, fully within residual powers,and the case will be tossed. Or maybe you can start a collection to sue the state of ND because they don't accept your VA fishing license. That makes an equal amount of sense.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Gunslinger wrote:
Mike wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:
The VA official, op cit,is being sued, ex officio as an agent of the US government. It will be defended by the Justice Department, not his private lawyer. Suits against the US government are virtually always against an official of it acting in official capacity. Let's not muddy the water. If a suit against an official is won, who pays? The US Treasury.
OK, finally, you see now that suits against the government generally proceed against a named official of the government, a legal fiction around the doctrine of sovereign immunity, in order to reach the state itself.

That is the point of Lonnie's proposed suit - to sue the official who denies his carry permit application in order to facially attack the unconstitutional state statute.

There is nothing to "finally" see. You keep missing the point: the US or any state government can be sued, has been and will be again. The lead agency head is generally named. E.g., the head of the VA, or Treasury or whatever, but he is not being sued. He is named as a stand in against the respondent: the US government. If the suit is won, who pays? Not him, but the US Treasury. A county sheriff has no standing to be named in a suit against state law, any more than a county Dogcatcher. I've never said a person can't be named in the complaint; simply that the ultimate respondent is the state/country.

The statute is fully constitutional, fully within residual powers,and the case will be tossed. Or maybe you can start a collection to sue the state of ND because they don't accept your VA fishing license. That makes an equal amount of sense.
Actually, "he" will be sued in his personal and official capacity if Lonnie brings the action - the state comes in as a legal fiction around soverign immunity. "Standing" is not a doctrine applicable to Defendants, only Plaintiffs. The case will not get "tossed," maybe what you meant was "dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted"? Probably not as it is clear that states may not discriminate against citizens of other states when applying for licenses (e.g., bar licenses), making state FOIA requests, see Lee v. Minner (3d. Cir. 2006), etc., unless compelling reasons are present. This is why a similar suit is proceeding right now in federal court in Georgia right now spearheaded by Georigia Carry.org.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
imported post

"Standing" applies to respondants as well as plaintiffs. You can't sue the 'wrong' person and if you do the case is dismissed in limine as any evidence brought would be immaterial to the respondant and therefore excluded. But, let's see what happens. You and I can go around on this--and have, forever, but the court has the last word. As I said, I fully support the principle, but have grave doubts as to the execution.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Gunslinger wrote:
"Standing" applies to respondants as well as plaintiffs. You can't sue the 'wrong' person and if you do the case is dismissed in limine as any evidence brought would be immaterial to the respondant and therefore excluded.
What on earth are you talking about? Standing is a doctrine to implement Article III case or controversy limits on the jurisdiction ofcourtsand is applicable only to Plaintiffs, not Defendants.

A Plaintiff has standing if he sustains an "injury in fact." Lujan. Further, Courts must assume Plaintiff's case, including designation of Defendant,to be meritorious when ruling on standing.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
imported post

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]Standing doctrine confuses both lower courts and litigants, because the Court manipulates the doctrine to serve other objectives. When the Court wants to reach the merits of a case, the standing doctrine is often relaxed. Conversely, when the Court wishes to avoid deciding the merits of a case--or perhaps, when it wants to shut a whole category of cases out of court--, the requirements for standing are tightened.[/size][/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]The standing doctrine consists both of constitutionally-derived rules and judicially-created gatekeeping ("prudential") rules. The Court has found Article III to require that plaintiffs demonstrate injury-in-fact, that the injury in question is fairly traceable to the defendant's challenged action, and that the injury is one that could be redressed by a favorable decision.[/size][/font]

To address "injury in fact" the court must decide that action is being taken against the "proper and addressable respondent." If the wrong person is named, there is no "standing" and the case can and will be dismissed in limine. It is technically correct to say only the plaintiff is judged as to standing to take the action. However, naming the wrong respondent declines standing and makes the action nol processable. I should have been more specific, but I assumed you would be aware that the respondent determines the standing de facto. You have no standing to sue me because someone else smashed your car. Thus, respondent 'standing' is mirrored by the correctness of plaintiff's naming him. He may have standing to sue someone, but it has to be the correct someone.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

Gunslinger wrote:
Anything happening with this?
I'm sorry that I haven't responded to this in so long. Here's the deal with the situation:

1) A few weeks ago I reached an accord with SAF to help be a gateway for donations for this particular case. The plus to this is that these donations to SAF, which need to be commented as "Wilson v. Denver" or "Wilson v. Colorado" in order to get directly to my attorney (still John Monroe), will be tax deductible. Once that gateway is specifically functional (as in given the full green light to start referring people to the gateway) I will update this post.

2) The basic reason why a case has not been filed is flat out due to the delays in Nordyke. In order to prevent what happened to the McDonald v. City of Chicago case where the Senior Judge there basically ruled against McDonald (and Alan Gura the attorney) citing Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove. The Nordyke court will rule for incorporation (this is pretty damned certain given the leanings of that particular panel), and having the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rule that the 2nd is an individual right and ruling against Alameda County (CA).

3) My lawyer and I would rather pepper the judge with the fact that the 9th Circuit just ruled for incorporation when filing the suit, and give the judge a little more gravitas to rule for incorporation.

EDIT: Misread Parker
 
Top